Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33847541›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2021

A method for systematically ranking therapeutic drug candidates using multiple uncertain screening criteria.

Xubiao Peng, Ebrima Gibbs, Judith M Silverman, Neil R Cashman, Steven S Plotkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Predictive modelling and ranking:Frontiers in chemistry · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xubiao PengDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ebrima GibbsBrain Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Judith M SilvermanBrain Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Neil R CashmanBrain Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Steven S PlotkinDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8998-877X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple different screening tests for candidate leads in drug development may often yield conflicting or ambiguous results, sometimes making the selection of leads a nontrivial maximum-likelihood ranking problem. Here, we employ methods from the field of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) to the problem of screening candidate antibody therapeutics. We employ the SMAA-TOPSIS method to rank a large cohort of antibodies using up to eight weighted screening criteria, in order to find lead candidate therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, and determine their robustness to both uncertainty in screening measurements, as well as uncertainty in the user-defined weights of importance attributed to each screening criterion. To choose lead candidates and measure the confidence in their ranking, we propose two new quantities, the Retention Probability and the Topness, as robust measures for ranking. This method may enable more systematic screening of candidate therapeutics when it becomes difficult intuitively to process multi-variate screening data that distinguishes candidates, so that additional candidates may be exposed as potential leads, increasing the likelihood of success in downstream clinical trials. The method properly identifies true positives and true negatives from synthetic data, its predictions correlate well with known clinically approved antibodies vs. those still in trials, and it allows for ranking analyses using antibody developability profiles in the literature. We provide a webserver where users can apply the method to their own data: http://bjork.phas.ubc.ca.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsResearch DesignHumansUncertaintyPharmaceutical PreparationsAlzheimer’s diseasedrug developmentlead optimizationMCDMrankingSMAA-TOPSIS

Identifiers

PMID33847541
PMCPMC8189013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.